NEXT? West Cease Assets & Grab Accounts Of Leaders, Rulers & People

[Asian.Century]

Is Pakistani Rulers, Politicians, Military Men, Soldiers', Bureaucrats, & all the Pakistani Puppets' Assets and Money "NEXT" on Target?

In line with Muslim & Arab countries loot tradition by UK, US , EU = Is Pakistani Assets & Investments confiscated like this?

Hope Pakistani Corrupt looters becomes a target from the looters and thieves of Western Countries, which will happen soon in future !!!



EU freezes Syrian bank's assets over regime crackdown

Posted Thursday, October 13 2011 at 16:34

The European Union decided on Thursday takes the assets of the Commercial Bank of Syria, in a new set of sanctions over the Syrian regime's brutal crackdown of protesters, diplomats said.

"Today's decision is a direct consequence of the appalling and brutal campaign the Syrian regime is waging against its own people," said EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.

"Our measures are not aimed at the Syrian people, but aim to deprive the regime of financial revenues and the support base necessary to maintain the repression," she said.

An EU statement said the 27-nation bloc had agreed to freeze the assets of an entity that "financially supports the regime."

The statement did not name the entity, but diplomats said it was the Commercial Bank of Syria, which was already sanctioned by the United States in August over its alleged financing of Syrian missiles and unconventional weapons.

The sanctions will be published in the EU Official Journal on Friday. It will bring the number of Syrian entities targeted by an EU asset freeze to 19.

It is the eighth round of sanctions imposed by the EU against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

The EU has prohibited the delivery of bank notes to the Syrian central bank, and banned oil imports and investments in the oil sector.

Reports indicate that frozen assets of the Gaddafi family stand at around $150 billion (LE 894.75 billion). That, in addition to $110 billion (LE 655.27 billion) of foreign reserves as well as 144 tons of gold provides post-Gaddafi Libya with a solid financial position.

It also imposed an EU travel ban and assets freeze on Assad and his closest associates.

http://www.nation.co.ke/News/world/EU+free...816/-/d5putz/-/

========================================================================

Egypt Mubarak's £40 million in the U.K.

CAIRO: Youm has exclusively obtained a file from the U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth office confirming that the United Kingdom froze £40 million in assets belonging to figures of Egypt’s former regime.

The document was sent to Mostafa Ragab, the head of Egyptians' UK Association which follows smuggled Egyptian money, to confirm freezing the assets.

"EU Ministers agreed on 21 March to freeze the assets of a number of individuals. Including the former President – Hosni Mubarak - and his Family, identified by the Egyptian authorities as being responsible for the misappropriation of state funds. These measures entered into force on 22 March," the document stated.

"We have frozen more than £ 40 million in the UK under the EU asset freeze. Nationally, we have reminded financial institutions in the UK of their obligations must do extra checks on senior overseas government figures they deal with. If there is any suspicion they must report it immediately to the Serious Organised Crime Agency. The Treasury, the Financial Services Authority and other regulators are talking to businesses on a regular basis about the risks from recent events in the Middle East and North African," the document added.

London property belonging to toppled dictators Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, and Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia, was seized soon after their removal from power.

The document also revealed that the U.K. adheres to repay $200,000 as support to the democratic transition amid the upcoming elections.

Goto the below links to see a photo copy of the document:

http://www.youm7.com/images/issuehtm/image...amwal1510/2.jpg

http://www.youm7.com/images/issuehtm/image...amwal1510/1.jpg

---------- Post added at 05:16 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:13 AM ----------



Syrian rulers' global property empire 'up for sale'

Nabila Ramdani
6 Oct 2011
London News | London Evening Standard - London's newspaper

A property empire including London flats and houses is being sold off and turned into hard cash by the dictators running Syria, it emerged today.

It is thought to include a £10million townhouse in Mayfair bought by Rifaat al-Assad, the so-called "Butcher of Hama", who allegedly led a massacre of up to 40,000 people in 1982.

Asma al-Assad, the glamorous Syrian first lady, is a UK passport holder who was born and raised in London, where her parents still live, and where she still owns homes.

Her husband, Bashar al-Assad, is leading a ruthless and bloody campaign against pro-democracy campaigners inspired by the Arab Spring revolutions.

The selling-off of the property is significant because it suggests that the al-Assads are liquidating assets in case they are forced out of power.

London property belonging to toppled dictators Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, and Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia, was seized soon after their removal from power.

French satirical and current affairs magazine Charlie Hebdo today said that Rifaat, Bashar's uncle, "has sold off his huge property portfolio in the United States, London, Spain and France", with the clan wanting to "liquidate" their overseas homes "as quickly as possible".

The magazine, which has obtained official documents confirming the transactions, says that two huge lots belonging to the Al-Assads in Puerto Banus, the marina town on Spain's Costa del Sol, are on the market for up to £600million. Even this figure has been discounted by many millions, suggesting that the al-Assads are eager to get rid of the property as quickly as possible.

"Dozens" of apartments in Paris - a traditional home-from-home for wealthy tyrants - are also being sold, together with an estate in Bessancourt, north of Paris, according to the magazine.

Asma al-Assad, 36, was said to have been spending time in London with her three children as the turmoil in Syria intensified.

Her father, Fawaz Akhras, a consultant cardiologist, and mother Sahar, a former diplomat, live in a family home in Acton.

Rifaat al-Assad, 73, the former vice president of Syria, moved into a Georgian house off Park Lane in 2009.

He has never been indicted by an international court for the Hama massacre in 1982. There are numerous independent accounts of his alleged involvement, but he has denied the claims.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/art...e-for-defeat.do

 

[Asian.Century]

UK thieves are here:

$23bn unspent assets in Libya

By James Blitz in London and Michael Peel in Abu Dhabi

Libya’s revolutionary government has enjoyed a surprise windfall that will help finance the country’s post-war recovery after discovering $23bn-worth of assets that were unspent by Col Muammer Gaddafi’s regime, officials in London and Tripoli have told the Financial Times.

The find – described by one British official as “the equivalent of discovering several billion dollars under the mattress” – is being hailed as a big boost to Libya’s new rulers’ efforts to run the country.

Much of Libya’s estimated $160bn of foreign assets remains frozen under sanctions imposed against the Gaddafi regime. However, sources have confirmed that the unspent assets were found this month in Libyan state coffers.

According to a senior British official, the Libyan government informed the UK last week that about 28bn Libyan dinars ($22.8bn) had been discovered in the Central bank of Libya.

“These are internal assets found on the Central bank of Libya balance sheet tthat should put them in gravy until well into next year. It takes the pressure off them to get overseas assets unfrozen,” said the official.

Wafik Shater, finance sector co-ordinator for a Libya’s stabilisation team set up after the fall of Tripoli, confirmed the find to the FT on Wednesday. He said the cash was sufficient to run the country for an estimated six months, based on historic spending patterns, although he added that the exact amount found was a “closely guarded secret”.

The find would come close to doubling the domestic assets which have hitherto been estimated at $25bn.

Mr Shater said the extra cash was money that had been budgeted for by the Gaddafi regime but never spent. It was potentially available for spending on social services, reconstruction and reviving the country’s all but mothballed 1.6m barrel a day oil industry, he added.

The discovery of extra cash in Libya’s domestic system highlights the secretiveness and lack of accountability of the Gaddafi regime, with officials from the new government saying it held a great deal of wealth off the country’s books.

Mr Shater said the authorities were still investigating the sale this year by the old regime of one fifth of the country’s gold reserves, adding that some of it may have been used to finance the colonel’s increasingly desperate military efforts to sustain his near-42-year rule.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8a34f66e-e474-11...l#axzz1azKq8PjA

 

[Asian.Century]

UK victims battle for Gaddafi’s cash

By John Mulgrew
Monday, 3 October 2011

Victims of Libyan-backed IRA attacks have stepped up the pressure on the UK and Irish governments to fight for compensation from the country’s assets.

Jonathan Ganesh of the Dockland Victims Association said he is planning a visit to the US in the coming week to ask politicians there “not to forget about the UK and Irish victims”.

“We are planning to go to Washington as we are concerned that Gaddafi’s frozen assets will only be used for the American victims.

“If the Americans are pursuing this avenue then the UK and Irish citizens should also be compensated.

“They must immediately take the initiative and basically fight for their own citizens – we are very weak if we can’t fight for our own.”

Jeffrey Donaldson, MP for Lagan Valley, said it was “essential” that the UK government continued to fight for compensation for victims of IRA atrocities.

“It is absolutely essential that our own government from the Prime Minister down fights for the compensation for victims of IRA attacks.

“We were let down the last time when the US got a settlement and the British were excluded.

“With a change of government we would hope that the Prime

Minister and Foreign Secretary make this a high priority — and that the money seized from Gaddafi’s evil regime goes to the victims of the atrocities.”

His comments come after two US senators contacted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking that Gaddafi’s frozen assets be used to plug a hole in a £1bn fund set up to compensate victims of Libyan terrorism.

At the moment only US citizens are eligible.

Colin Parry’s 12-year-old son Tim was killed in an IRA blast in Warrington in 1993.

“As ever the Americans are pro-active on behalf of their citizens who suffered at the hands of Gaddafi’s Libya,” he said.

“Bearing in mind the human and material costs borne by the UK in supporting the Libyan people's revolution to oust Gaddafi, one might imagine that our government would have solid grounds for pro-actively supporting its citizens much as the Americans have done and continue to do.”

Last week an IT Vdocumentary explored the former Libyan dictator’s relationship with the IRA, focusing on the supply of arms to the group during the height of the Troubles.

It also alleged that Colonel Gaddafi had sent more than than £1m in cash to dissident republicans to buy weapons before going into hiding.

 

[Asian.Century]

Now the Russian want to rob:

Russia wants a share in post-Assad Syria
By AMIR TAHERI

Tuesday, 11 October 2011

After months of “intense diplomacy”, the United Nations’ Security Council has failed to develop a position on the crisis in Syria. The failure came when Russia and China vetoed a resolution that urged Syrian despot Bashar al-Assad to end violence against the civilian population or face fresh sanctions.
Paradoxically, the double veto could facilitate stronger action by Western democracies against the Assad regime.

No longer obliged to take into account Russian and Chinese “sensibilities”, the Western powers and their regional allies, notably Turkey, could quickly impose a set of economic and diplomatic sanctions against the Syrian regime. The European Union and Turkey account for more than 80 percent of Syria’s foreign trade. Turkey is by far the biggest foreign direct investor in Syria. The EU is also the principal importer of Syrian oil, the revenue of which is directly controlled by Assad and his entourage.

At the same time, high level diplomatic contacts with European powers, notably France, helped Assad enhance his prestige at home.

With the Security Council scripting itself out of the Syrian issue, an alliance of Western powers plus Arab allies and Turkey could develop a common strategy to a crisis that is threatening regional peace and security.

Acting outside the Security Council is not without precedents. Western interventions in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and, more recently, Cote d’Ivoire, all took place without the council’s involvement. In Kosovo, the prospect of a Russian veto forced the Western democracies to act alone.

What is urgently needed is the creation of a number of safe havens for Syrians fleeing the daily massacres. Turkey is already hosting some 8,000 Syrian refugees. In Jordan, the number is put at over 6,000 and in Lebanon at around 5,000. Jordan has established a camp at Matraq while Turkey is building two close to the Syrian border. Iraq has not yet established any camp although it has received more than 10,000 Syrian refugees.

Russia wants a share in post-Assad Syria

(The writer is columnist at Asharq al-Awsat, where this article was first published on Oct. 10, 2011.)

 

[Asian.Century]

EU tightens sanctions against Belarus, Iran, Syria
By Toby Vogel - 10.10.2011 / 14:47 CET

Foreign ministers also discuss Middle East, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

National foreign ministers meeting in Luxembourg today (10 October) have expanded sanctions against officials and businesses involved in human-rights violations in Belarus, Iran and Syria.

The ministers added 16 individuals to a list of Belarusians who are prohibited from traveling to the EU and whose assets have been frozen. This brings the number of Belarusians under EU sanctions to around 200. Diplomats said a suggestion of adding Belarusian businesses to the sanctions list was dropped after resistance from several member states.

The leadership of Alyaksandr Lukashenka snubbed a summit of EU leaders and six neighbours to the east in Warsaw last week.

The ministers also added 29 individuals to a list of people targeted by sanctions in Iran, in connection with human-rights abuses. The EU says that repression in Iran has intensified over the past few weeks.

On Syria, member states agreed to freeze the assets of the Commercial Bank of Syria and to prohibit firms based in the EU from doing business with it. The bank - Syria's largest state-owned financial institution - has already been hit by sanctions by the US for its role in trade with North Korea.

The EU already prohibits firms based in the Union from making new investments in the country's oil industry.

The UN estimates that at least 2,900 people have been killed, most of them by security forces, in six months of unrest sparked by protests against the rule of Bashar Asad, the Syrian president. The security clampdown has been fierce, with scores of people injured or imprisoned.

EU member states were determined to tighten sanctions against Syria after China and Russia last week vetoed a weakly-worded resolution in the UN Security Council.

Middle East

The ministers were briefed on the situation in the Middle East by Catherine Ashton, the EU's foreign policy chief. Ashton, who represents the EU in the Quartet - the UN, EU, Russia and the US - which steers the Middle East peace process, reported on a Quartet meeting in Brussels yesterday (9 October).

Ashton said that the Quartet will within days invite Israelis and Palestinians to return to the negotiating table. Direct talks between the two sides have been suspended for three years, and both sides maintain preconditions for their resumption.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

The foreign ministers of the 27 EU member states also decided to continue the EU's peacekeeping force in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Eufor) under a mandate from the UN. Further reductions in troop strength - currently around 1,300 - are to be discussed in the coming weeks. Eufor is supposed in the future to focus on training local security forces.

The UN Security Council is expected to decide on the continuation of its peacekeeping mandate early in November.
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2011/...yria/72252.aspx

 

[Asian.Century]

British Oil company and the British looters on plunder and rampage for financial gains.

Heritage Oil wastes no time in snapping up Libyan assets

The fighting may be continuing in Libya and Colonel Gaddafi still on the loose, but that has not stopped Heritage Oil from making a play for part of the country's oil industry.

Heritage has bought a 51% controlling interest in Benghazi-based Sahara Oil Services for $19.5m, following reports last month from Reuters that the company had hired ex-SAS commando John Holmes to help it win work in Libya (something Heritage has subsequently denied). It said the new acquisition would allow it to pay a significant role in Libya, allowing it to look at ways to gain access to key producing fields and licences.

Heritage said it had been talking to senior members of Libya's National Transitional Council during the last five months:

Heritage is exploring ways to assist the NTC and the state oil companies rehabilitate certain of their existing fields and recommence production. [Sahara Oil] has been granted long-term licences to provided full oil field services in Libya, including the ability to drill onshore and offshore and holds both oil and gas licences.
Heritage's chief executive Tony Buckingham has a long history in Africa, and the company also has operations in Iraq, so it is no stranger to troubled areas. Buckingham said:

Heritage is well placed to play a significant role in the future oil and gas industry in Libya. This acquisition is consistent with Heritage's first mover strategy of entering regions with vast hydrocarbon wealth where we have a strategic advantage.
In a desperately anxious market, Heritage has lost 5.3p to 219op. But Richard Griffiths at Evolution Securities said:

Heritage has acquired a stake in a Libyan oil services company that gives it legitimate access to the rehabilitation of state run fields, and allows it to drill onshore and offshore, as well as hold oil and gas licences. In addition, the newly acquired company will assist Heritage with the drilling of its high risk, high reward Area 7 licence which is offshore Malta. As the consideration is only US$19.5m it is effectively option money that could prove to be a very shrewd investment.
Phil Corbett at RBS tempered his enthusiasm, however:

We are inclined to see Heritage's move positively, although the 'new' Libya clearly remains in a state of flux following the uprising and therefore there could be significant changes to the upstream sector in terms of regulation and/or contract terms. We see little point in getting carried away at this point ahead of further details being revealed although by the same token it is an interesting move and likely to spark a revisiting of the investment case which has been in the doldrums for the past couple of months. We remain at hold with a 220p price target.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/marketf...e?newsfeed=true

 

[Asian.Century]

US Moves to Seize More Iraqi Assets

by Emad Mekay
The United States is moving to freeze millions of dollars in accounts held by relatives of Saddam Hussein and other senior officials in his fallen regime, months after Washington seized billions of dollars in frozen Iraqi assets overseas.

The US Treasury Department in a statement Thursday urged other countries to follow suit and transfer the funds to the Development Fund for Iraq (***), authorized by the United Nations Security Council last May to safeguard Iraq's oil revenues and other money earmarked for reconstruction.

But watchdog groups say the United States has no right to dispense with the funds as it pleases – much of them going to US companies who have been awarded reconstruction contracts – and that the money should be held until a legitimate, elected Iraqi government is in place.

"There has been an illegal regime change in Iraq," said Rahul Mahajan of the group United for Peace and Justice.

"But since that has happened, until the Iraqi people have a chance to constitute their own legitimate government, they should have the right to put a hold on those funds and to call for some accounting for what previous heads of states and families have done."

"Even if you (were to) grant them that it was in fact a legal occupation," added Mahajan, "this certainly doesn't give them the right to dispose of the Iraqi funds, not only the funds for members of Saddam Hussein's family but also the Iraqi assets seized before," he said.

Washington says it is worried the funds might be used to finance the Iraqi resistance.

Thursday's announcement designated 191 "entities" whose funds, financial assets or economic resources will be frozen and later seized.

The list published includes 16 immediate family members of senior officials of the former Iraqi regime, including Sajida Khayrallah Tilfa, Hussein's first wife, and her three daughters Raghad, Rana and Hala; his second wife Samira Shahbandar and his youngest son Ali.

Washington also plans to seize the assets of members of the family of Ali Izzat el-Duri, the former Iraqi vice-president, including assets and funds belonging to his four wives.

Among those on the list are a number of quasi-governmental companies that operated under the former regime, including Automobile State Enterprise, Central Petroleum Enterprise, Iraqi Oil Tankers Company, the Directorate General Of Contracts And Purchasing and the State Oil Marketing Organization.

Just before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, US President George W. Bush ordered his government to identify, freeze and seize Iraqi assets worldwide.

"That mission has been and remains a top priority for the Department of the Treasury," said Juan Zarate, treasury's deputy assistant secretary for terrorist financing and financial crimes, on Thursday.

The seizure provoked an outcry from some humanitarian groups, who accused the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad of not accounting for the seized money.

Treasury officials retorted that the funds had been handed over to the CPA for reconstruction projects, and soon after the authority published a skeleton budget of the *** on its website.

Washington says it has since identified bank accounts and other assets held in over 20 countries, including Switzerland, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Russia, Spain, Egypt, Thailand, Indonesia, Lebanon, Belarus, Iran, South Korea, Malaysia, Japan, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, UAE, British Virgin Islands, Jordan, Syria and Yemen.

The assets and the money include possessions in the countries that did business with Iraq, either legally or illegally, under the U.N. sanctions regime in place before March 2003. Known as "trading states," these nations include Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Turkey.

Zarate told a congressional hearing Thursday that Iraqi assets were "well concealed in the international financial system, behind a maze of front companies and straw men."

"Saddam Hussein, his regime cronies and their immediate families cannot be allowed to get away with plundering the country of Iraq and hiding their ill-gotten gains in the international financial system," he added.

Since Mar. 20, 2003, and under US pressure, nearly two billion dollars of Iraqi assets have been newly identified and frozen outside the United States and Iraq. Assets worth 751 million dollars have been transferred by 10 countries to the ***.

In total, the United States, other nations and the Bank for International Settlements have transferred to Iraq assets worth an estimated 2.5 billion dollars.

Another 1.3 billion dollars in cash and valuables has been recovered in Iraq.

Washington has put enormous efforts into collecting Iraqi assets as calls have grown at home against the spiraling expense of the Iraq war and occupation, estimated at close to four billion dollars a month.

The Bush administration placed large financial investigation teams in Iraq on a long-term basis to obtain access to individuals who it says have knowledge of the flow and location of Iraqi funds. The teams work closely with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the intelligence community and the Department of Defense.

"The hunt for Iraqi assets will be a long-term effort. It requires dogged investigation, including interrogations, witness interviews and document exploitation, as well as intensive diplomatic efforts worldwide and vigorous intelligence work," Zarate said..

While Washington says it will hand over power to a still-unidentified Iraqi authority by Jun. 30, treasury officials said that as long as US military and civilian personnel are in the country and under threat from the resistance, it will continue to "attack the financial underpinnings of that insurgency."

(Inter Press Service)

US Moves to Seize More Iraqi Assets - by Emad Mekay

 

[Asian.Century]

How and why the US encouraged looting in Iraq
By Patrick Martin

The widespread looting in Baghdad, Basra, Mosul, Kirkuk and other Iraqi cities, following the collapse of the Ba’athist regime of President Saddam Hussein, was not merely an incidental byproduct of the US military conquest of Iraq. It was deliberately encouraged and fostered by the Bush administration and the Pentagon for definite political and economic reasons.

Thousands took part in the looting in Baghdad which began April 9, the day the Hussein government ceased to function in the capital city. Not only were government ministries targeted, and the homes of the Ba’athist elite, but public institutions vital to Iraqi society, including hospitals, schools and food distribution centers. Equipment and parts were stripped from power plants, thus delaying the restoration of electricity to the city of 5 million people.

Perhaps the most devastating loss for the Iraqi people is the ransacking of the National Museum, the greatest trove of archeological and historical artifacts in the Middle East. The 28 galleries of the huge museum were picked clean by looters who made off with more than 50,000 irreplaceable artifacts, relics of past civilizations dating back 5,000 years. The museum’s entire card catalog was destroyed, making it impossible even to identify what has been lost.

The US military stood by and permitted the ransacking of the museum, an incalculable blow to Iraqi and world culture, just as they allowed and even encouraged the looting of hospitals, universities, libraries and government social service buildings. The occupation forces protected only the Ministry of Oil, with its detailed inventory of
Iraqi oil reserves, as well as the Ministry of Interior, the headquarters of the ousted regime’s secret police.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) issued a statement in Geneva declaring that the relief agency was “profoundly alarmed by the chaos currently prevailing in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq.” The medical system in Baghdad “has virtually collapsed,” the ICRC warned, and it reminded the US and Britain that they were obliged under international law to guarantee the basic security of the Iraqi population.

General Tommy Franks, the overall commander of all US and British forces in Iraq, issued an order to unit commanders that specifically prohibited the use of force to prevent looting. This instruction was only modified after several days because of mounting protests by Iraqi citizens over the destruction of their social infrastructure.

The New York Times reported one such protest by an Iraqi man who was standing guard at Al Kindi hospital in Baghdad. Haider Daoud “said he was angry at his encounters with American soldiers in the neighborhood, mentioning one marine who he said he had begged to guard the hospital two days ago. ‘He told me the same words: He can’t protect the hospital,’ Mr. Daoud said. ‘A big army like the USA army can’t protect the hospital?’”

The role of the US military went beyond simply standing by, and extended to actually encouraging and facilitating looting. According to a report in the Washington Post, after the US military reopened two bridges across the Tigris River to civilian traffic, “the immediate result was that looters raced across and extended their plundering to the Planning Ministry and other buildings that had been spared.”

Sweden’s largest newspaper, Dagens Nyheter, published an interview April 11 with a Swedish researcher of Middle Eastern ancestry who had gone to Iraq to serve as a human shield. Khaled Bayoumi told the newspaper, “I happened to be right there just as the American troops encouraged people to begin the plundering.”

He described how US soldiers shot security guards at a local government building on Haifa Avenue on the west bank of the Tigris, and then “blasted apart the doors to the building.” Next, according to Bayoumi, “from the tanks came eager calls in Arabic encouraging people to come close to them.”

At first, he said, residents were hesitant to come out of their homes because anyone who had tried to cross the street in the morning had been shot. “Arab interpreters in the tanks told the people to go and take what they wanted in the building,” Bayoumi continued. “The word spread quickly and the building was ransacked. I was standing only 300 yards from there when the guards were murdered. Afterwards the tank crushed the entrance to the Justice Department, which was in a neighboring building, and the plundering continued there.

“I stood in a large crowd and watched this together with them. They did not partake in the plundering but dared not to interfere. Many had tears of shame in their eyes. The next morning the plundering spread to the Modern Museum, which lies a quarter mile farther north. There were also two crowds there, one that plundered and one that watched with disgust.”

Kirkuk and Mosul

Similar scenes were reported in Kirkuk and Mosul, the two large northern cities with ethnically mixed populations. There the looting of public buildings has direct political overtones, since the destruction of property deeds and other government records will make it easier to conduct ethnic cleansing of Arab or Turkmen populations by the Kurdish forces that now dominate the region, in alliance with US Special Forces.

In Kirkuk, the site of Iraq’s richest oilfield, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan has already installed its officials in the homes of former Ba’ath Party leaders. US soldiers of the 173rd Airborne Brigade seized control of an Iraqi air base but permitted looters to leave the base with their stolen goods, even opening the gates to allow them to pass.

There was no effort to halt arson at the city’s cotton plant, or at office buildings, but US troops quickly occupied facilities of the North Oil Company, the state-owned firm that manages the huge northern oilfields. Colonel William Mayville, commander of the brigade, dispatched troops to three key oil facilities, while US Special Forces stood watch over four gas-oil separation plants. Mayville told the American media that he wanted to send the message, “Hey, don’t screw with the oil.”

In Mosul, northern Iraq’s largest city, hospitals, universities, laboratories, hotels, clinics and factories were all sacked and stripped of their goods. The 700 US troops sent to Mosul remained outside the city for more than a day while the theft and vandalism continued, leading to widespread complaints from city residents—reported even in the American press—that the US was permitting the pillaging.

Save the oil—and nothing else

Robert Fisk, writing in the British newspaper the Independent April 14, noted a pattern in the response of American forces to looting in Baghdad, which, he said, “shows clearly what the US intends to protect.” He continued: “After days of arson and pillage, here’s a short but revealing scorecard. US troops have sat back and allowed mobs to wreck and then burn the Ministry of Planning, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Irrigation, the Ministry of Trade, the Ministry of Industry, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Information. They did nothing to prevent looters from destroying priceless treasures of Iraq’s history in the Baghdad Archaeological Museum and in the museum in the northern city of Mosul, or from looting three hospitals.

“The Americans have, though, put hundreds of troops inside two Iraqi ministries that remain untouched—and untouchable—because tanks and armoured personnel carriers and Humvees have been placed inside and outside both institutions. And which ministries proved to be so important for the Americans? Why, the Ministry of Interior, of course—with its vast wealth of intelligence information on Iraq—and the Ministry of Oil. The archives and files of Iraq’s most valuable asset—its oilfields and, even more important, its massive reserves—are safe and sound, sealed off from the mobs and looters, and safe to be shared, as Washington almost certainly intends, with American oil companies.”

Such concerns were already apparent in the actions of the US military at the very beginning of the war. The same General Franks who instructed US troops to take no action against looting in Baghdad or other cities gave the order March 20 for the First Marine Expeditional Force to invade Iraq a day early, because of reports, later proven largely false, that Iraqi troops were setting fire to the country’s southern oilfields at Rumaila.

The Centcom chief discarded previous operational plans and potentially put many soldiers’ lives at risk by acting before the air bombardment had begun in order to safeguard the real objective of the US war, Iraq’s huge oil reserves.

The politics of plunder

The most striking aspect of the outbreak of looting was the nonchalant attitude of US government officials in Washington. At a Pentagon press conference Friday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld denounced the media for exaggerating the extent of chaos, and argued that the looting was a natural and perhaps even healthy expression of pent-up hostility to the old regime. “It’s untidy,” Rumsfeld said. “And freedom’s untidy. And free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes.”

There is no doubt the Bush administration would take a less charitable view of the “freedom” to loot if mobs were breaking into corporate offices in downtown Houston, Washington or New York City.

As in every action of the Bush administration, personal greed and profit-gouging are an important aspect. The ransacking of Iraqi government facilities, added to the devastation caused by American bombing, is part of the process of demolishing the large state-run sector of Iraq’s economy, to the benefit of American companies.

Already contracts have been awarded to private American firms to provide new school books, replace looted medical equipment, even train a new Iraqi police force.

In the Orwellian language of New York Times columnist William Safire, the US aim is to “introduce free enterprise and the rule of law”—by means of a criminal invasion, followed by widespread looting. This will set the stage for a much bigger theft: the privatization of Iraq’s vast oil resources and their exploitation, directly or indirectly, by

US and British oil companies.

There is more at stake, however, than rank hypocrisy or an appetite for Iraq’s oil wealth. The looting in Iraq directly serves the political interests of American imperialism in cementing its domination of the conquered country.

The Bush administration is seeking to encourage the emergence of a new ruling elite in Iraq, formed from the most rapacious, reactionary and selfish elements, which will serve as a semi-criminal comprador force entirely subservient to the United States. The acquisition of property through the theft of Iraqi state assets serves to bind these elements to the US occupation forces by their own economic self-interest. As one Army officer told the Times, as he watched the looting approvingly, “This is the new income redistribution program.”

There is recent precedent for such an operation. The first Bush administration proceeded in the same fashion when it encouraged the formation of a new capitalist elite in Russia out of layers of the Soviet-era mafia and former Stalinist bureaucrats who acquired state assets by wholesale theft. What US imperialism promoted in the 1990s in eastern Europe and the former USSR under the label “shock therapy”, it is now applying in the aftermath of its “shock and awe” devastation of Iraq.

How and why the US encouraged looting in Iraq

 

[Asian.Century]

Here is the Holy America and Obama Administration looting for American ppl.:

Using Frozen Assets to Aid Libyans

Author: Stuart Levey, Adjunct Senior Fellow for National Security and Financial Integrity
May 11, 2011

The Obama administration says it will seek to seize some of the Libyan assets frozen by the recently imposed sanctions to use for humanitarian assistance or to benefit Libyan rebels. That might seem like a straightforward, sensible thing to do--after all, more than $34 billion of Libyan assets have been frozen by the United States and more than $50 billion have been frozen worldwide. But while it is relatively common to freeze assets, it is rare for frozen assets to be confiscated and then reallocated. While it can be done, confiscation poses several complications.

Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Congress has empowered the president to take certain steps if he determines that a situation poses an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States. This statutory authority has been used to impose most of the financial sanctions the United States maintains against various countries, terrorist organizations, and proliferators of weapons of mass destruction.

On February 25, 2011, President Obama signed an executive order (PDF) declaring such an emergency with respect to Libya, finding that the Qaddafi government's use of violence against unarmed civilians--and the risk that Libyan state assets would be misappropriated--undermined Libya's security and stability, constituting an "unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States." The president ordered a freeze on "all property and interests in property" of the government of Libya, its agencies, instrumentalities, controlled entities, and the Central Bank of Libya in the United States or otherwise in the custody or control of U.S. persons. (The order also blocked the assets of certain individuals.)

When assets are frozen under IEEPA's emergency authority, their ownership does not change. Treasury regulations require such assets to be held in the name of the original owner and blocked cash to be held in an interest-bearing account. Indeed, the fact that the sanctioned party continues to own the assets--even though they are forbidden to use them during the presidentially declared emergency--has been central to the courts' approval of these kinds of actions.

IEEPA also gives the president an even more extraordinary power: When the United States "is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked by a foreign country or foreign nationals," the president can confiscate the property of any person, organization or country that he determines to be responsible for those attacks or engaged in those hostilities. He is then authorized to use those assets in any way he determines to be in the interest of the United States.

This power has been used rarely. President George W. Bush did use it during the Iraq war, issuing an executive order (PDF) on March 20, 2003, confiscating certain Iraqi government property. He also expressed the intention to use that property "to assist the Iraqi people and to assist in the reconstruction of Iraq." This order applied the approximately $1.7 billion frozen by sanctions on Iraq to the reconstruction effort. That action was aggressive, but consistent with the will of the international community. Just two months later, the UN Security Council obliged all member states to freeze all assets of the former government of Iraq and to transfer them to the Development Fund for Iraq.

If the United States is perceived as being more willing to confiscate assets than other countries are, or if the United States confiscates another country's assets in less than extreme circumstances, that may become a factor weighed by central banks and sovereign wealth funds in determining where to invest.

The Obama administration reportedly does not intend to utilize the confiscation authority granted to the president in IEEPA, but will instead seek a separate statute from Congress to confiscate some of the blocked Libyan assets. While IEEPA's "armed hostilities" standard is probably met here, and great deference is normally given to presidential determinations of this sort, a separate statute is legally safer, as it would resolve any potential questions about IEEPA's applicability. A stand-alone statute also has a policy advantage: The administration may want to avoid setting a precedent of using the IEEPA confiscation provision so that they are not pressured to use it in other, less compelling, circumstances.

Confiscation might not yield as much money as some might hope. The State Department said last week (WashPost) that the administration would seek to confiscate only a small portion (approximately $150 million of the $34 billion) of the frozen Libyan assets. This may well be because only a tiny fraction of that money is readily available to be both confiscated and transferred. The executive order blocks all property and "interests in property" of Libya in the United States or in the custody or control of U.S. persons. The phrase "interests in property" is intentionally broad. Thus, even if only an interest in an asset is in the custody or control of a U.S. person, freezing that interest makes it impossible for the Qaddafi regime to liquidate or transfer it.

On the other hand, confiscated property can only be transferred and used if the entire asset can be reached or if the blocked interest can be monetized. While there may be some assets in cash or other liquid form held entirely in U.S. financial institutions that can easily be confiscated and transferred, most of the $34 billion is probably made up of complicated property interests, including ownership interests in non-publicly traded companies or real estate. Even if these interests are confiscated by the United States, they probably cannot be monetized and transferred quickly, if ever. Similarly, some assets blocked by U.S. financial institutions may be held in a foreign subsidiary or branch, raising conflict of laws issues over the proper treatment of the frozen assets. Such assets are not likely to be reached by a confiscation action by the
United States alone.

The administration must also consider the implications of confiscation on the attractiveness of the United States for future investment. If the United States is perceived as being more willing to confiscate assets than other countries are, or if the United States confiscates another country's assets in less than extreme circumstances, that may become a factor weighed by central banks and sovereign wealth funds in determining where to invest.

In Iraq, the United States acted in concert with the international community. So far, the United Nations has not imposed a similar obligation for Libya, although UNSCR 1970 does express the intention that "assets frozen pursuant to [the Resolution] shall at a later stage be made available to and for the benefit of the people" of Libya, and UNSCR 1973 expressed the "determination" to make that happen "as soon as possible."

These provisions allow the United States to argue that confiscation is consistent with the will of the international community. It would undoubtedly be preferable, however, if other countries--especially other financial centers--acted with the United States. Unfortunately, other countries may lack the legal power to confiscate assets, especially in the absence of the type of explicit UN mandate that existed for Iraq. Even with that mandate for Iraq, many countries faced legal complications in transferring assets. Not surprisingly, some allies are already claiming that legal obstacles may preclude the confiscation of frozen Libyan assets in their countries.

Another challenge countries face in Libya, in contrast to Iraq, is the lack of a universally recognized entity to receive money. While some countries (France and Qatar, for example) have recognized the Transitional National Council (TNC) as the legitimate government of Libya, most countries, including the United States and the UK, have not. If the TNC were universally deemed to be the legitimate government of Libya, at least in theory a simple unfreezing of Libyan government assets, rather than formal confiscation, would be all that is needed.

There are also significant practical questions about how to spend any transferred money and what controls to put in place to ensure that it is used only as intended. The United States and other countries have responded to these concerns by pursuing the creation of a trust fund, subject to multilateral oversight, that can accept donations as well as any frozen funds that are confiscated and redirected. Even if it turns out to be difficult to confiscate and transfer frozen assets, the trust fund could begin to provide needed aid in short order, particularly if countries make good on the pledges already made: Qatar has pledged $400 million, and Kuwait has pledged $180 million to the effort.

While the option of confiscating frozen Libyan assets is available to the United States, the complications surrounding confiscation make it unlikely that frozen assets will satisfy the short-term financial demands the United States and our allies face in Libya, especially without a UN command to transfer assets to a specific entity representing the Libyan people.

http://www.cfr.org/libya/using-frozen-asse...-libyans/p24945

----------------------------------------------------

Hope Pakistani Corrupt looters becomes a target from the looters of West!!!

 

[American Pakistani]

Hope the west return that Pakistani money back to Pakistan.

 

[Asian.Century]

UK Guardian, Pakistanis corrupt leaders too have all money & assets outside Pakistan, take them soon.

Mubarak sons 'have $340m in Swiss bank accounts'

Swiss authorities said to be investigating whether ousted dictator's eldest son, Alaa, was involved in money laundering

guardian.co.uk, Monday 17 October 2011 14.41 BST

Hosni Mubarak's sons Alaa, left, and Gamal, at a court hearing in Cairo, where they are charged with corruption. Photograph: AP
The two sons of the ousted Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, have an estimated $340m (£215m) in Swiss bank accounts, a senior Egyptian justice ministry official has said.

Assem al-Gohary said Swiss authorities were investigating whether one of the sons, Alaa, was involved in money laundering along with other former regime figures. At home, Mubarak and his sons have been charged with corruption and all three are under arrest. Mubarak is also charged with complicity in the killing of about 850 protesters during the Egyptian uprising between 25 January and 11 February.

Switzerland has already frozen the assets of the Mubarak family and other former regime figures, which Gohary estimated at nearly $450m. He added that most of those assets belonged to the sons.

Egypt's attorney general froze the assets of the former presidential family on 20 February after the 18-day uprising that ousted Mubarak.

Mubarak's youngest son and one-time heir apparent, Gamal, 47, rose rapidly through the ranks of his father's ruling National Democratic party over the past decade to become the country's most powerful politician.

The wealth of 49-year-old Alaa has been the subject of much speculation since well before the political rise of his younger brother. There are allegations that he used his status to muscle in on profitable enterprises, taking a cut of profits without contributing to the funds invested or work done.

Gohary also said that the wealth of Mubarak's top associate, the tycoon Hussein Salem, and his family exceeded $4bn. He added that Salem and his family had transferred funds overseas in the past six months.

"They transferred assets into cash and deposited it in secret accounts in banks in islands overseas, Hong Kong and United Arab Emirates," Gohary said in a statement.

The 77-year-old Salem is co-defendant in the Mubarak corruption trial and faces charges in relation to lucrative land and other deals, including exporting gas to Israel. He is also under arrest.

He and his son were arrested in a wealthy Madrid suburb in June and Spain said it had frozen €33m (£29m) in accounts held by Salem and his relatives.

Upon his arrest, Salem, one of the most secretive businessmen in Egypt, appeared before two judges: one handling the Spanish money-laundering probe and another dealing with the international warrant under which Salem was arrested at the request of Egypt.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/1...ounts?fb=native

 

[Asian.Century]

Who is the 'one percent' rich in USA?

Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:37PM GMT

Fortune 500 has issued a list of S&P 500 companies along with their 2010 financial details. Along with American billionaires and millionaires, the 500 companies are believed to form a main part of the “One Percent” rich in America. Recent anti-Wall Street protesters blame the One Percent for their desperate economic situation.

Who is the One Percent in America?

The following are the largest full-service global investment banks which usually provides both advisory and financing banking services, as well as the sales, market making, and research on a broad array of financial products including equities, credit, rates, currency, commodities, and their derivatives.

1. Bank of America
2. Barclays Capital
3. Citigroup
4. Credit Suisse
5. Deutsche Bank
6. Goldman Sachs
7. JPMorgan Chase
8. Morgan Stanley
9. Nomura Securities
10. UBS
11. Wells Fargo Securities

Diversified Financials

The following are the top eight diversified financials in the U.S. in terms of revenue in 2010. Fortune 500

1. Fannie Mae .......... $153.82 billion
2. General Electric .......... $151.62 billion
3. Freddie Mac .......... $98.36 billion
4. INTL FCStone ........... $46.94 billion
5. Marsh & McLennan ........... $10.93 billion
6. Ameriprise Financial .......... $10.04 billion
7. Aon .......... $8.51 billion
8. SLM .......... $6.77 billion

Commercial Banks

The following are the top ten commercial banks in the U.S. in terms of revenue in 2010. Fortune 500

1. Bank of America Corp. .......... $134.19 billion
2. JP Morgan Chase & Co. .......... $115.47 billion
3. Citigroup .......... $111.05 billion
4. Well Fargo .......... $93.24 billion
5. Goldman Sachs Group .......... $45.96 billion
6. Morgan Stanley .......... $39.32 billion
7. American Express .......... $30.24 billion
8. US Bancorp .......... $20.51 billion
9. Capital One Financial .......... $19.06 billion
10. Ally Financial .......... $17.37 billion

Petroleum Refining

The following are the top ten U.S. petroleum refining firms in terms of revenue in 2010. Fortune 500

1. Exxon Mobil .......... $354.67 billion
2. Chevron .......... $196.33 billion
3. Conoco Philips .......... $184.96 billion
4. Valero Energy .......... $86.03 billion
5. Marathon Oil .......... $68.41billion
6. Sunoco .......... $35.54 billion
7. Hess .......... $34.61 billion
8. Murphy Oil .......... $23.34 billion
9. Tesoro .......... $20.25 billion
10. Holly .......... $8.32 billion

Oil & Gas Equipment, Services

The following are the top U.S. firms active in oil and gas equipment and services in terms of revenue in 2010. Fortune 500

1. Halliburton .......... $17.97 million
2. Baker Hughes .......... $14.41 million
3. National Oilwell Varco .......... $12.15 million
4. Cameron International .......... $6.13 million

Aerospace & Defense

The following are the top ten U.S. corporations in aerospace and defense in terms of revenue in 2010. Fortune 500

1. Boeing ........... $64.30 billion
2. United Technologies .......... $54.32 billion
3. Lockheed Martin ........... $46.89 billion
4. Northrop Grumman .......... $34.75 billion
5. Honeywell International ........... $33.37 billion
6. General Dynamics .......... $32.46 billion
7. Raytheon .......... $25.18 billion
8. L-3 Communications .......... $15.68 billion
9. ITT .......... $11.15 billion
10. Textron .......... $10.52 billion

Motor Vehicles & Parts

The following are the top ten U.S. manufacturing companies of motor vehicles and parts in terms of revenue in 2010. Fortune 500

1. General Motors .......... $135.59 billion
2. Ford Motor .......... $128.95 billion
3. Chrysler Group .......... $41.94 billion
4. Johnson Controls .......... $34.30 billion
5. Goodyear Tire & Rubber .......... $18.83 billion
6. TRW Automotive Holdings .......... $14.38 billion
7. Navistar International .......... $12.14 billion
8. Lear .......... $11.95 billion
9. Paccar .......... $10.29 billion
10. Oshkosh .......... $9.84 billion

American Millionaires

The number of Americans who are millionaires is about one percent of the population. NPR

Of the 435 members of the House, 244 current members of Congress are millionaires - that's about 46 percent and that includes 138 Republicans and 106 Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan watchdog group that tracks money in politics. In fact, there are probably many more millionaires in Congress, since lawmakers don't have to include the value of their family home and other details. NPR

In 2010, the average winner of a House race spent $1.5 million for his/her campaigns. The average Senate winner spent close to $10 million. Closely contested races are much more expensive. And about half of that money, on average, comes from an elite group of very wealthy donors. NPR

Wealthy Americans have more access to lawmakers than most regular voters and constituents do, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. NPR

The median net worth for a current member of the U.S. House of Representatives was $725,000 in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, and the media net worth of a U.S. Senator was $2.4 million. Open Secrets

The richest member of Congress is Darrel Issa, whose net worth was valued between $156 million and $451 million. Open Secrets

Here is a list of the 20 wealthiest current members of Congress and their average net worth, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, based on their financial reports covering calendar year 2009. (The Center plans to unveil its analysis of lawmakers' 2010 financial disclosures later this fall.)
Open Secrets :

1. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) .......... $303 million
2. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) .......... $238 million
3. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) .......... $174 million
4. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) .......... $160 million
5. Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) .......... $160 million
6. Rep. Vernon Buchanan (R-Fla.) .......... $148 million
7. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) .......... $137 million
8. Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) .......... $109 million
9. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) .......... $98 million
10. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) .......... $94 million
11. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) .......... $77 million
12. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) .......... $76 million
13. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) .......... $58 million
14. Rep. Gary Miller (R-Calif.) .......... $51 million
15. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) .......... $50 million
16. Rep. Diane Lynn Black (R-Tenn.) .......... $49 million
17. Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.) .......... $43 million
18. Rep. Richard Berg (R-N.D.) .......... $39 million
19. Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) .......... $39 million
20. Rep. Kenny Marchant (R-Texas) .......... $38 million

Top Donors to Obama in 2008

The following table lists the top donors to Barack Obama in the 2008 election cycle. Open Secrets

1. University of California .......... $1.6 million
2. Goldman Sachs .......... $1 million
3. Harvard University .......... $0.85 million
4. Microsoft Corp. .......... $0.83 million
5. Google Inc. .......... $0.80 million
6. Citigroup Inc. ........... $0.70 million
7. JPMorgan Chase & Co. .......... $0.69 million
8. Time Warner .......... $0.59 million
9. Sidley Austin LLP .......... $0.58 million
10. Stanford University .......... $0.58 million
11. National Amusements Inc. .......... $0.55 million
12. UBS AG .......... $0.54 million
13. Wilmerhale Llp .......... $0.54 million
14. Skadden, Arps et al .......... $0.53 million
15. IBM Corp .......... $0.52 million
16. Columbia University .......... $0.52 million
17. Morgan Stanley .......... $0.51 million
18. General Electric .......... $0.49 million
19. U.S. Government .......... $0.49 million
20.Latham & Watkins .......... $0.49 million

Top Donors to Bush in 2004

1. Morgan Stanley .......... $603,480
2. Merrill Lynch .......... $586,254
3. PricewaterhouseCoopers .......... $514,250
4. UBS AG .......... $474,325
5. Goldman Sachs .......... $394,600
6. Lehman Brothers .......... $361,525
7. MBNA Corp .......... $350,350
8. Credit Suisse Group .......... $326,040
9. Citigroup Inc. .......... $320,820
10. Bear Stearns .......... $313,150
11. Ernst & Young .......... $305,140
12. US Government .......... $295,786
13. Deloitte LLP .......... $292,250
14. Wachovia Corp. .......... $279,310
15. US Dept of Defense .......... $279,157
16. Ameriquest Capital .......... $253,130
17. US Dept of State .......... $225,330
18. Blank Rome LLP .......... $225,150
19. Bank of America .......... $218,261
20.AT&T Inc. .......... $214,920

American Billionaires

The following is a list of top 20 American billionaires issued by the Forbes 400 in 2011. Forbes

1. Bill Gates from Microsoft .......... $59 billion
2. Warren Buffet from Berkshire Hathaway .......... $39 billion
3. Larry Ellison from Oracle .......... $33 billion
4. Charles Koch from diversified .......... $25 billion
5. David Koch from diversified .......... $25 billion
6. Christy Walton from Wal-Mart .......... $24.5 billion
7. George Soros from hedge funds .......... $22 billion
8. Sheldon Adelson from casinos .......... $21.5 billion
9. Jim Walton from Wal-Mart .......... $21.1 billion
10. Alice Walton from Wal-Mart .......... $20.9 billion
11. S. Robson Walton from Wal-Mart .......... $20.5 billion
12. Michael Bloomberg from Bloomberg LP .......... $19.5 billion
13. Jeff Bezos from Amazon.com .......... $19.1 billion
14. Mark Zuckergerg from Facebook ........... $17.5 billion
15. Surgey Brin from Google .......... $16.7 billion
16. Larry Page from Google .......... $16.7 billion
17. John Paulson from hedge funds ........... $15.5 billion
18. Michael Dell from Dell .......... $15 billion
19. Steve Ballmer from Microsoft .......... $13.9 billion
20.Forrest Mars from candy .......... $13.8 billion

 

[Asian.Century]

As Libya Takes Stock, Muammar Gaddafi's Hidden Riches Astound

By Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Washington -- Moammar Kadafi secretly salted away more than $200 billion in bank accounts, real estate and corporate investments around the world before he was killed, about $30,000 for every Libyan citizen and double the amount that Western governments previously had suspected, according to senior Libyan officials.

The new estimates of the deposed dictator's hidden cash, gold reserves and investments are "staggering," one person who has studied detailed records of the asset search said Friday. "No one truly appreciated the scope of it."

If the values prove accurate, Kadafi will go down in history as one of the most rapacious as well as one of the most bizarre world leaders, on a scale with the late Mobutu Sese Seko in Zaire or the late Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines.

Kadafi's death after he was captured Thursday outside his birthplace, the coastal town of Surt, not only all but ended the armed uprising that erupted in February. Revelation of the stunning size of the portfolio may stir anger among Libya's 6.5 million people — about one-third of whom live in poverty.

Though Kadafi's foreign investments would seem to offer a bonanza for the transitional government, it is struggling to reclaim the money because of legal barriers created by a U.N. freeze on Libyan assets and national laws designed to ensure seized assets are only released to the legal owner.


U.S. and European authorities said Friday that they intended to quickly hand over frozen assets to the transitional Libyan government. But so far, the U.N. has authorized release of only $1.5 billion from accounts in the U.S., and the Obama administration has turned over $700 million of that amount, said Marti Adams, a Treasury Department spokeswoman.

Some African nations were reluctant to freeze Libyan accounts at all because of their loyalty to Kadafi. Others feared that freezing Libyan assets could hurt their domestic economies as bills and workers went unpaid.

During his 42 years in power, Kadafi steered aid and investment to benefit his own family and tribe, but denied support for much of the country, especially the eastern region that historically resisted his family's despotic grip on power.

Obama administration officials were stunned last spring when they found $37 billion in Libyan regime accounts and investments in the United States, and they quickly froze the assets before Kadafi or his aides could move them.

Governments in France, Italy, England and Germany seized control of another $30 billion or so. Investigators estimated that Kadafi had stashed perhaps another $30 billion elsewhere in the world, for a total of about $100 billion.

But subsequent investigations by American, European and Libyan authorities determined that Kadafi secretly sent tens of billions more abroad over the years and made sometimes lucrative investments in nearly every major country, including much of the Middle East and Southeast Asia, officials said Friday.

Most of the money was under the name of government institutions such as the Central Bank of Libya, the Libyan Investment Authority, the Libyan Foreign Bank, the Libyan National Oil Corp. and the Libya African Investment Portfolio. But investigators said Kadafi and his family members could access any of the money if they chose to.

The new $200 billion figure is about double the prewar annual economic output of Libya, which has the largest proven oil reserves in Africa.

Officials of the transitional government point to the secret transfer of so much wealth as proof that Kadafi, who once gave himself the title "King of Kings," had imperial ambitions for himself but little concern for most Libyans.

Kadafi was sending vast sums abroad "at a time when Libyans were struggling for the money they needed for schools, hospitals and all sorts of infrastructure," said one person close to the council, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigations are ongoing.

Investigators believe Kadafi's foreign investments accelerated in recent years. Almost all the assets and accounts found in the United States were from the last four or five years, after Kadafi surrendered a nascent nuclear weapons program and moved toward restoring full diplomatic relations with Washington.

In addition to the vast foreign investments, Kadafi is believed to have amassed billions of dollars in gold reserves inside Libya, possibly for use in case his rule was threatened. Western authorities believe Kadafi and his aides secretly maneuvered to bring some of the cash back to Tripoli to help pay for their war effort.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told an NBC interviewer Thursday that rebel forces had worried that Kadafi could still "be recruiting mercenaries, paying with the gold they believe he had absconded with."

Western officials have struggled all year not only to identify Kadafi's money but also to convince countries such as India, China and Russia to seize Libyan investments as required by a U.N. Security Council resolution.

Investigations last spring found Libyan regime investments in several high-profile Western ventures, including the Italian soccer club Juventus, the Italian bank UniCredit and the British publisher Pearson, which owns the Financial Times newspaper.

Officials now believe other assets include accounts held by Kadafi family members with money drawn from national oil sales.

Steven Cook, a Mideast specialist at the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations, said it was known that Kadafi had invested heavily in nearby African nations, since he sought to build and lead a pan-African alliance.

"But all this, of course, goes way beyond that," Cook said.

Read more LA Times world news.

As Libya Takes Stock, Muammar Gaddafi's Hidden Riches Astound

 

[Asian.Century]

Mali leaders & syrians leaders wealth in western countries is next !!!

 

[Audio]

Mali leaders & syrians leaders wealth in western countries is next !!!

Assad's wife already spent it on LV shoes and Gucci bags.....